Set standards that members can accept
and attempt to live by

I was interested in the letter titled Council on legislation offers chance for change from District 9520 Past Governor Doug Beasy in the December-January, 2004, issue of Rotary Down Under.

I agree with most of his reasoning, but not necessarily some proposals. In an attempt, to use his own phrase, “to make one size fit all,” R.I. has developed through Councils on Legislation and Board decisions a mass of rules and policies that now comprise a Manual of Procedure of 320 pages and a Code of Policies of another 570 pages. Granted, there is some duplication but I suggest that very few, if any, Rotarians are familiar with every topic or policy covered. The result is that many are ignored, either deliberately or more probably through ignorance.

Having had the good fortune to visit many clubs in many countries I have observed how many so-called “rules” of Rotary are not followed. I suggest that in Australia we are more “law-abiding” than Rotarians in many other countries. I have seen clubs ignoring what we consider to be Rotary basics. At the same time the clubs function successfully and provide worthwhile Rotary fellowship and service.

Should we get tough and enforce the “rules” or should we simplify them so that they are clearly understood, accepted and followed? I agree with PDG Doug, let us seek to simplify them.

I haven’t seen any proposals or resolutions to be considered by this year’s Council on Legislation, but if the past is any indication, a significant proportion will seek to add to rules and policies.

A small simplification step was taken at the last COL by reducing the types of membership to two – active and honorary, and to expand the number of members who could hold the same classification.

Yet in the same issue of Rotary Down Under in which PDG Doug’s letter is published, there is a report that the R.I. Board decided on how a retired person being inducted in to Rotary should be classified. Again, a fiddling at the edges.

The proposals that PDG Doug has submitted are no doubt abbreviated versions, so I comment in ignorance and with some care.

• “Allow clubs to make their own schedule of meetings.” I am not sure what this means, but I feel that the regular weekly meeting is a strength of Rotary. Fortnightly meetings have been suggested and our present attendance requirements (60 per cent) are almost once a fortnight minimum. Does it mean meeting at irregular times, that is different days of the week or different times? If so, it would make life difficult for those who enjoy “making up”, but the club is principally for the benefit of members, so this may have some merit. I think even for its members it would become confusing.

• “Remove the compulsory attendance requirements – not appropriate to volunteers.” I question as to whether Rotarians are “volunteers” in the community-accepted sense of the word, but there needs to be some commitment. In many volunteer organisations regular attendance is almost a necessity. I don’t agree with this proposal. I don’t like the word “compulsory’’, I prefer “obligatory.” I think that there is a difference.

• “Membership qualification to a person of good character etc.” I take it for granted that any person invited to become a Rotarian has these qualifications, but it is the classification principle that makes Rotary unique. I don’t think that we make enough of this difference and emphasise that we are an organisation of business and professional people. I can’t support this proposal.

• I’m ambivalent about the changes to the Paul Harris recognition, only because we have become so fixed in our mind in Australia that it is a service award, and by so doing we discourage Rotarians or others from donating to The Rotary Foundation. There is almost a stigma about “buying” a Paul Harris recognition and Australian contributions to The Rotary Foundation suffer accordingly. If we need a meritorious service award, let’s be open and create one that doesn’t involve financial commitment, though I realise that if we did so we may reduce even further our contributions to The Rotary Foundation.